Roland McGrath <rol...@redhat.com> writes: >> Mainly because an alternative is to install them in subdirectories >> with the name ld. Then gcc can run them directly using a -B option. >> I don't know which approach is best. > > I think it keeps things simplest for humans to understand if the actual > binaries are available as ld.bfd and ld.gold. If you then want some > obscure directory names containing an "ld" for gcc's use, then make those > symlinks. Personally, I think -Wl,--gold (via $(bindir)/ld being a wrapper > script) is nicer than -B/usr/libexec/binutils/gold/ or whatnot.
OK, HJ's approach is OK with me. I would still like another binutils maintainer to take a look at the patch, once he updates it for my comments. Ian
